Mani Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 7962 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mani Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 11 September, 2024

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:37776]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14273/2024

Mani Ram S/o Sukhram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Ward No.7,
Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Water
         Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The    Joint    Secretary,        Finance        Rules      Department    Of
         Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       The     Chief       Engineer,         Water         Resources       (North),
         Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh.
4.       The    Executive        Engineer,        Water       Resources,     Division
         Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar.
5.       The Assistant Engineer, Water Resources, Sub-Division,
         Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Milap Chopra



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

11/09/2024

1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by

the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in a

bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13130/2016 "Harphool Singh & Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. and another connected matter decided on

05.12.2022 in the following terms:-

"Keeping into consideration the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the clear opinion that

[2024:RJ-JD:37776] (2 of 2) [CW-14273/2024]

the present matters do fall within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This is a specific case wherein keeping into consideration the said parameters, the Court definitely ought to interfere as here is a clear discrimination between the employees appointed by the same authorities, in the same manner, wherein the eligibility criteria was also the same and duties are also identical in all the aspects.

So far as the clarification dated 20.05.2016 is concerned, the contents or the facts of the same were never pleaded in reply to the writ petition nor was the said documents placed on record. Therefore, the same could not have been refuted or controverted by the petitioners. Even otherwise, this Court is of the specific view that the clarification dated 20.05.2016 cannot be held to be valid as the same specifically discriminates between two set of employees of the same parent department.

In view of the above observations, the present writ petitions are allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to grant the benefit of the three selection grades to the petitioners on the promotional post of Work Supervisor Gr.I on the same terms, as granted to the Mate of the IGNP Department. The essential orders be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the present order.

All pending applications also stand disposed of."

2. Thus, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the

judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Harphool Singh (supra).

3. Stay petition as well as other pending applications, if any,

shall also stand disposed of.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 55-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)